I bought a Canon 7

[Forest_rain]

What do I need to know? It comes with a 50mm 1.8 lens. I've taken the plunge and gotten my first interchangeable lens RF, pretty excited. What should I check out/make sure is working when I receive it?

I know it doesn't have an accessory shoe. This doesn't really bother me since I probably won't need to use an accessory finder and if I want to use a flash, I'm thinking I can just use a flash bracket (L or straight) and mount it to the side via tripod mount.

Seems like there's some aftermarket mounts, like the Canonflex R flash coupler, but I couldn't find any online right now. Thinking I won't need it though, maybe just an extra gadget.

May go with the 100mm 3.5 or 135mm 3.5 to go with the 50mm. Maybe 135mm to avoid the haze on the 100mm

Wide angle probably not needed.

Anything else I should know about the camera?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Use a handheld meter. Make sure it focuses to infinity in the RF, on the lens, and against the film plane itself. Listen to the shutter speeds 1/30 and below, at 1/15 and slower you should be able to hear a rocker in the slow train escapement click back and forth after the second curtain closes. Look at the curtains as the shutter is tripped through each speed with the back open. Do this against a light and make sure you see light passing the gate with every speed. Make sure the second curtain isn't capping and closing or creeping slowly into the frame before it fully closes. Make sure your rangefinder spot is bright and had good contrast, with no separation, desilvering or cracks.
Phil Forrest

 

[davhill]

... make sure the second curtain isn't capping and closing or creeping slowly into the frame before it fully closes.
Phil Forrest

What is capping?

 

[Mackinaw]

What is capping?

When one of the shutter curtains overtakes the other as they travel across the film plane. Most obvious at higher shutter speeds. One side of the exposed image will be darker than the other side.

Jim B.

 

[newst]

I can't add to the camera advice you already have, so I will talk about lenses.

You have the Canon 1.8/50 which is an excellent performer. Unless you want a much faster normal (1.4/50 or 1.2/50) the only other 50mm I would recommend would be the 1.5/50 for the Sonnar look. Once you are familiar with the camera and lens you can decide to branch out as there are a lot of good LTM 50mm lenses on the market from inexpensive Soviet lenses to Leica.

I would recommend the 100mm over the 135mm. While I see some people complain about fogging in the lens, that is usually more environmental than a flaw. Any 60+-year-old lens you buy could have it. Since I started using LTM lenses I have owned four of the Canon 3.5/100mm lenses and sold off three (keeping the better performer each time). None of those lenses were afflicted with fogging/haze.

My personal opinion, 135mm is just too long to focus accurately on a rangefinder. My results were always hit and miss, where the 100mm has been spot on. Of course, on a mirrorless camera, the 135mm is great.

I personally like having a 35mm lens in the kit. Canon produced a range of them, in 3.5, 2.8, 1.8, 2.0, and 1.5. I have owned all but the first and last listed. Of the three I have owned the 2.8 is a fine performer, but not a standout. The 1.8 is small and incredibly sharp, but low contrast where the 2.0 is sharp with much greater contrast. I stuck with the 1.8 because it best suits my preferences, and I use it alongside a Leica Elmar 3.5/35mm.

 

[Forest_rain]

Thanks, this is good advice. I'm not sure what you mean by "mirrorless" camera here, are you talking about digital cameras?

I'll have to consider a 35mm or soviet 28mm lens, can I still focus using a 28mm assuming the focus is calibrated, just compensating for the framing?

Currently I'm not using any wide angle lenses, on my Praktica BMS. I use only a 50mm and 135mm.

I can't add to the camera advice you already have, so I will talk about lenses.

I would recommend the 100mm over the 135mm. While I see some people complain about fogging in the lens, that is usually more environmental than a flaw. Any 60+-year-old lens you buy could have it. Since I started using LTM lenses I have owned four of the Canon 3.5/100mm lenses and sold off three (keeping the better performer each time). None of those lenses were afflicted with fogging/haze.

My personal opinion, 135mm is just too long to focus accurately on a rangefinder. My results were always hit and miss, where the 100mm has been spot on. Of course, on a mirrorless camera, the 135mm is great.

I personally like having a 35mm lens in the kit. Canon produced a range of them, in 3.5, 2.8, 1.8, 2.0, and 1.5. I have owned all but the first and last listed. Of the three I have owned the 2.8 is a fine performer, but not a standout. The 1.8 is small and incredibly sharp, but low contrast where the 2.0 is sharp with much greater contrast. I stuck with the 1.8 because it best suits my preferences, and I use it alongside a Leica Elmar 3.5/35mm.

 

[dourbalistar]

You already have a 50mm, but if you're also shooting digital (mirrorless) alongside your film cameras, I'd recommend the Nikkor-H.C 5cm f/2 LTM without hesitation. It has a close focus feature from 3.5ft down to 1.5ft. Although the near focus distances are uncoupled from the rangefinder, it works great with digital cameras that have live view. Beautiful little Sonnar-type lens, and you can find lots of image samples here in this thread on the forum.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Don't deny yourself a good 1950s Jupiter-12. Any of them are good, but I feel like the ones from the 50s are the best. Really good build quality and eexcellent glass. I've owned four of them and every one has been a great image maker.
Phil Forrest

 

[newst]

Thanks, this is good advice. I'm not sure what you mean by "mirrorless" camera here, are you talking about digital cameras?

I'll have to consider a 35mm or soviet 28mm lens, can I still focus using a 28mm assuming the focus is calibrated, just compensating for the framing?

Currently I'm not using any wide angle lenses, on my Praktica BMS. I use only a 50mm and 135mm.

Mirrorless camera refers to the lines of digital Micro 4/3, APS-C and Full Frame cameras that do not use the old SLR technique of having a mirror bounce the image through the lens to the viewfinder, then flip the mirror out of the way to expose the sensor when the shutter is pressed. In a mirrorless camera the sensor provides the image directly to the viewfinder. Because they don't have the DSLR style mirror-box between the lens and the sensor you can use rangefinder lenses with their shorter lens to film/sensor distance.

You can guestimate a 28mm composition extrapolating from the 35mm frame lines in the Canon 7, but the preferred method is to use an external 28mm finder that mounts to the cold shoe.

 

[Forest_rain]

Mirrorless camera refers to the lines of digital Micro 4/3, APS-C and Full Frame cameras that do not use the old SLR technique of having a mirror bounce the image through the lens to the viewfinder, then flip the mirror out of the way to expose the sensor when the shutter is pressed. In a mirrorless camera the sensor provides the image directly to the viewfinder. Because they don't have the DSLR style mirror-box between the lens and the sensor you can use rangefinder lenses with their shorter lens to film/sensor distance.

You can guestimate a 28mm composition extrapolating from the 35mm frame lines in the Canon 7, but the preferred method is to use an external 28mm finder that mounts to the cold shoe.

Great, I was wondering if I could use my rangefinder lenses on my mirrorless...I have micro 4/3 and a Sony A7. Seems like it might be more compact that way, I think many of the adapters for SLR lenses are pretty long, probably because they have to account for the longer distance and space created by the mirror. Correct me if I'm wrong but if that's true rangefinder lenses may be better suited to mirrorless cameras.

 

[randy stewart]

Canon 7

Canon 7

To other comments, let me add that the shutters on the 7 and 7s are complex and prone to running slow over time. The killer is that they are now practically impossible to repair/adjust. 20 years ago I had Ken Ruth go though my newly acquired, minty Canon 7. The best he could do was to get 1/1000 2/3s of a stop slow and 1/250 about 1/3 stop slow. I wasn't my favorite shooter anyway, and I had no option. He told me that was about par for that camera/shutter. Suggest that you put yours on a tripod and shoot the same scene and exposure, just adjusting the shutter speed and aperture to cover all speeds. Process and look for over exposure in the fast speeds.

 

[Forest_rain]

Don't deny yourself a good 1950s Jupiter-12. Any of them are good, but I feel like the ones from the 50s are the best. Really good build quality and eexcellent glass. I've owned four of them and every one has been a great image maker.
Phil Forrest

A googled search turned up some bad review of the Jupiter-12. But these are adapted to mirrorless cameras. Maybe they are better for film?

The images look a pretty soft on both of these reviews. Perhaps they got bad copies?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

A googled search turned up some bad review of the Jupiter-12. But these are adapted to mirrorless cameras. Maybe they are better for film?
The images look a pretty soft on both of these reviews. Perhaps they got bad copies?

The rear element of the J-12 sits too close to a digital sensor for it to work well. Digital sensors' photosites are not unlike pipes, in that the light rays need to hit as straight as possible or you can get all sorts of aberrations like smearing and chromatic shifts. This is not unique to the J-12, but goes for all non-retrofocal wide angle lenses, usually wider than about 28mm, depending upon design. The Zeiss Biogon, J-12, Nikkor 2.1cm, Leica (Schneider) Super Angulon, Leica 28mm Elmarits (especially the amazing V1) and any lens with a rear element that sits near the film plane, including modern Voigtlanders and Zeiss offerings, all will have this tendency to some degree unless there is a way to profile the lens to the camera. Leica did this with their 6 bit coding system which can remove a lot of the aberration, but with some lenses on some cameras, it just can't be done. I loved using my Super Angulon f/3.4 on my old M9 (when it worked) but the results HAD to be in black and white or the color shift of cyan/magenta in the corners was awful. I created a digital profile in post that could correct about 95% of it but really that lens shines with black and white work and even more so on film. It's just stunning. The 2.1cm Nikkor is equally as good. The J-12 is fantastic because it is a true symmetrical Biogon derivative and it exhibits zero geometric distortion, which I am a huge stickler against. If people don't like their J-12, they need to make sure it is adjusted properly, the elements aren't decentered, and they need to shoot it on film.

Phil Forrest

 

[Scrambler]

A googled search turned up some bad review of the Jupiter-12. But these are adapted to mirrorless cameras. Maybe they are better for film?

The images look a pretty soft on both of these reviews. Perhaps they got bad copies?

Digital needs light entry perpendicular to the sensor. Some slight exception with Leica M digitals.

The J12 works tolerably well when the perpendicular rule is approximated. An APS-C sensor goes close, a 4/3 would be closer. A lot of digital sensors have plastic guards that prevent proper J12 operation.

I use for black-and-white on an R-D1. Colour is tolerable. I can't mount on my Sony APS-C camera. It will mount on the A7 (not that I have one but have GAS) but only the crop framing might do.

Film doesn't care what angle the light strikes at, so J12 images are much better.

 

[newst]

Great, I was wondering if I could use my rangefinder lenses on my mirrorless...I have micro 4/3 and a Sony A7. Seems like it might be more compact that way, I think many of the adapters for SLR lenses are pretty long, probably because they have to account for the longer distance and space created by the mirror. Correct me if I'm wrong but if that's true rangefinder lenses may be better suited to mirrorless cameras.

You are not wrong. The long adapters are precisely to compensate for the size of the original camera's mirror box. Rangefinder lenses don't have to deal with that so adapters for mirrorless are tiny.

 

[Forest_rain]

Camera arrived. Shutter seems to work well, seems well cared for and seems to run fast, slow speeds all work, and I can hear the rocker after the shutter closes on 1/30th and slower. I guess this is to absorb the shock on the slow shutter? No idea.

Meter works, but only if I put pressure on the meter cell on the front. This is fine, seller mentioned it.

Unfortunately, the lens seems to have haze. Seller didn't mention it, maybe he didn't notice it. It's only visible from certain angles and looking into the light. How bad is it? Before I try to disassemble, is this the kind of haze which is permanent and etched into the glass?

It's somewhere amongst one of the interior rear elements.

It's a little disappointing, which is a shame because the body seems to be in good shape. I hope I don't have to send the whole thing back because of haze.

 

[Waus]

From memory: the Canon 50mm 1,8 has a reputation for its haze...

 

[Forest_rain]

From memory: the Canon 50mm 1,8 has a reputation for its haze...

So should I just send the whole thing back, camera + lens not as described, or live with it? How much will this impact image quality?

From research, the haze may be in between two cemented lens elements, if so, not possible to clean it.

 

[Mackinaw]

Looks like it'd be cleanable, but you won't really know until you take it apart. If you do nothing and shoot as is, expect a low-contrast pic.

I had a Nikkor 50/2.0 that was so hazy you almost couldn't see through it. It cleaned up just fine. Ditto with an Olympus Zuiko that was on a Mamiya 120 rangefinder I once owned.

Jim B.

 

[dourbalistar]

From memory: the Canon 50mm 1,8 has a reputation for it's haze...

I think it's the two later black barrel Version II and Version III that have a reputation for developing haze, from an outgassing of the cement. The earlier (silver) Serenar versions perhaps less so.

So should I just send the whole thing back, camera + lens not as described, or live with it? How much will this impact image quality?

From research, the haze may be in between two cemented lens elements, if so, not possible to clean it.

If you don't want to send the whole thing back, perhaps you can negotiate with the seller for a partial refund, seeing was not accurately described?